The slides went into this in some detail and assumed the audience was familiar with the issues.
Namely:
1. The Pacific nuclear deterrence is currently based in WA. This means that deployments that cross the pacific would be much longer and much farther from base. Even subs that go out for months on end need to be resupplied. The proposed solution to this would be moving those subs to Hawaii.
2. The majority of the US sub deterrence is based in the Atlantic, because that's closer to Moscow. If you have a limited amount of subs, you would need to move some from there to cover the Pacific, which means you have less deterrence in the US-Russia standoff even if it gives you more options for US-NK or US-China.
Each missle sub has two crews that man it in a 3 month rotation. When the sub returns there is a quick refit and resupply, everything that broke and couldn't be fixed at sea is repaired and it goes back out. The turn-around is very quick.
nikdaheratik|8 years ago
Namely:
1. The Pacific nuclear deterrence is currently based in WA. This means that deployments that cross the pacific would be much longer and much farther from base. Even subs that go out for months on end need to be resupplied. The proposed solution to this would be moving those subs to Hawaii.
2. The majority of the US sub deterrence is based in the Atlantic, because that's closer to Moscow. If you have a limited amount of subs, you would need to move some from there to cover the Pacific, which means you have less deterrence in the US-Russia standoff even if it gives you more options for US-NK or US-China.
dingaling|8 years ago
That's probably an unrealistic range with a useful payload, but there's certainly no need to cross the Pacific.
2. "As of 2016, nine Trident-armed submarines are deployed in the Pacific and five in the Atlantic."
Johnny555|8 years ago
Basing the sub in Hawaii might shave a couple days off of that.
Doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference in a 90 day SSBN deployment.
hansthehorse|8 years ago